I think genetics, physiology (and chemical dependency), environment, imprinting (both moral and immoral) and circumstance plays a significant role in whether we can or can not be moral or make a moral choices. As such they can be an "influence in" or a "cause toward" eliminating a moral choice. Consequently, immoral actions are not simply the product of “free will” or choice. Often the choice to be moral is eliminated - in isolated circumstances and in isolated behaviors and often entirely. Also circumstances can define whether actions are moral or immoral. Among those things which influence moral ability and behavior are: (1) Environment or circumstances: For example, hunger can influence the immoral act of stealing food. A naked woman can influence immoral sexual acts, etc. (2) Genetic predispositions: Take for example my docile dog - his genetics were specifically altered to make him docile. Just as many humans have genetic codes which influence our behavior. and (3) Engagement “influences” future behavior through imprinting: That is to say when you engage repeatedly in over-eating you program yourself to over-eat OR when you are compassionate you program yourself to seek future opportunities of compassion (it makes you feel good). Stated another way: 1 - Drive toward immoral behavior = Genetic Survival Programming 2- Genetic Programs influence choice. 3- Repeated operation of genetic programs can imprint behavior. 4 - Imprinted behavior either eliminates moral choice or immoral choice. The ability to be moral is in conflict with chemical dependancies, genetic influences and imprinting. There is a battle between your moral abilities and your genetic programming and biology. Not only can one side win out-right, but one side can win out in isolated situations. It's not an all or nothing. When we behave immorally, we can call all this an “unconscious choice”. But what it really is simply our “genetic survival programming” with imprinted modalities or chemical dependancies. Consequently, moral abilities include variances. To begin, not everyone’s “genetic programming” (and therefore predispositions to behave in one way or another) are the same. Some people have greater genetic tendencies toward immoral behavior. Secondly, this programming operates toward behavior in different environments differently. And clearly not everyone’s experiences are the same. Finally, our genetic programming is imprintable through use. Therefore through use certain programs become unconscious and result in this eliminated choice. Overcoming these “influences” toward moral behavior can be a tremendous accomplishment. Again it depends on the variables - it’s easy to stay off drugs when you have never been exposed to them nor became addicted, It’s easy to succeed morally in a friendly environment (well fed, etc.). It’s easy to over come your genetic programming if you’re my docile dog. However, You can not compare the moral accomplishments of humans as the variables vary tremendously. Not to mention intelligence and wisdom. All of this translates in to the very biblical concept of being unable to judge people - because your circumstances, your genetics, your prior experiences are not theirs and therefore truly unknown to you. I think a person of lesser virtue has no compassion for the person whose genetics and/or environment and/or dependency caused them to loose the battle and make immoral decisions. That certain someone who wishes to impose punishment and death as a means of exacting revenge and controlling the conditions of their material existence. Conversely, who are we assign heroism to moral choices? We are far from omniscient. No doubt there are heroic people who have overcome all sorts of circumstances and factual realities. Then there are plenty who just skate and look like heroes. It’s all in the variables. Making it impossible for us to judge another as either moral or immoral.
Friday, June 08, 2007
Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged
I think genetics, physiology (and chemical dependency), environment, imprinting (both moral and immoral) and circumstance plays a significant role in whether we can or can not be moral or make a moral choices. As such they can be an "influence in" or a "cause toward" eliminating a moral choice. Consequently, immoral actions are not simply the product of “free will” or choice. Often the choice to be moral is eliminated - in isolated circumstances and in isolated behaviors and often entirely. Also circumstances can define whether actions are moral or immoral. Among those things which influence moral ability and behavior are: (1) Environment or circumstances: For example, hunger can influence the immoral act of stealing food. A naked woman can influence immoral sexual acts, etc. (2) Genetic predispositions: Take for example my docile dog - his genetics were specifically altered to make him docile. Just as many humans have genetic codes which influence our behavior. and (3) Engagement “influences” future behavior through imprinting: That is to say when you engage repeatedly in over-eating you program yourself to over-eat OR when you are compassionate you program yourself to seek future opportunities of compassion (it makes you feel good). Stated another way: 1 - Drive toward immoral behavior = Genetic Survival Programming 2- Genetic Programs influence choice. 3- Repeated operation of genetic programs can imprint behavior. 4 - Imprinted behavior either eliminates moral choice or immoral choice. The ability to be moral is in conflict with chemical dependancies, genetic influences and imprinting. There is a battle between your moral abilities and your genetic programming and biology. Not only can one side win out-right, but one side can win out in isolated situations. It's not an all or nothing. When we behave immorally, we can call all this an “unconscious choice”. But what it really is simply our “genetic survival programming” with imprinted modalities or chemical dependancies. Consequently, moral abilities include variances. To begin, not everyone’s “genetic programming” (and therefore predispositions to behave in one way or another) are the same. Some people have greater genetic tendencies toward immoral behavior. Secondly, this programming operates toward behavior in different environments differently. And clearly not everyone’s experiences are the same. Finally, our genetic programming is imprintable through use. Therefore through use certain programs become unconscious and result in this eliminated choice. Overcoming these “influences” toward moral behavior can be a tremendous accomplishment. Again it depends on the variables - it’s easy to stay off drugs when you have never been exposed to them nor became addicted, It’s easy to succeed morally in a friendly environment (well fed, etc.). It’s easy to over come your genetic programming if you’re my docile dog. However, You can not compare the moral accomplishments of humans as the variables vary tremendously. Not to mention intelligence and wisdom. All of this translates in to the very biblical concept of being unable to judge people - because your circumstances, your genetics, your prior experiences are not theirs and therefore truly unknown to you. I think a person of lesser virtue has no compassion for the person whose genetics and/or environment and/or dependency caused them to loose the battle and make immoral decisions. That certain someone who wishes to impose punishment and death as a means of exacting revenge and controlling the conditions of their material existence. Conversely, who are we assign heroism to moral choices? We are far from omniscient. No doubt there are heroic people who have overcome all sorts of circumstances and factual realities. Then there are plenty who just skate and look like heroes. It’s all in the variables. Making it impossible for us to judge another as either moral or immoral.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)